Free speech sign up

[Karl]

For those of us who still believe in the importance of free speech-not speech advocating violent action, but the voicing of genuine, heartfelt concerns instead of resorting to the alternative-physical violence to settle disputes, please sign up

 

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_sign_manifesto

 

 

Sent from my iPad

[Tibetan_Ice]

There is no such thing as free speech. Every thing that comes out of your mouth costs something.

[blackstar212]

For those of us who still believe in the importance of free speech-not speech advocating violent action, but the voicing of genuine, heartfelt concerns instead of resorting to the alternative-physical violence to settle disputes, please sign up

 

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_sign_manifesto

 

 

Sent from my iPad

Free means without restraint. I am not sure speech without restraint is healthy. Though I do agree that violence needs to be curbed.

[Karl]

Free means without restraint. I am not sure speech without restraint is healthy. Though I do agree that violence needs to be curbed.

The restraint is only if there is a deliberate attempt to create violence as opposed to arguing a point. For instance a certain Mr Choudry has been put in prison in the UK for 'supposedly' supporting ISIS, now, I don't lie Mr Choudrys philosophy or viewpoint, neither do I like communists, but, putting people in prison to shut down discourse is violence.

[joeblast]

I wish the original 13th amendment still existed, prohibiting anyone with a title of nobility from a foreign nation from holding office

 

 

it'd prohibit every single member of the american bar association from holding office

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-26/look-who-gutting-first-amendment

[futuredaze]

This upcoming film might be of interest:

 

http://www.silencedmovie.com/

 

I am excited, there are a lot of insightful speakers from the names I recognize.

[Karl]

This upcoming film might be of interest:

 

http://www.silencedmovie.com/

 

I am excited, there are a lot of insightful speakers from the names I recognize.

"We are doing this to ourselves" struck me as particularly relevant.

 

I've wondered about this on the various forums I've participated in over the years. At one time it seemed clear to me these were private spaces like someone's front room, or a restaurant, but this isn't the case when the aim is to attract anyone and everyone to, what is ostensibly a public meeting in which everyone is invited to have a voice.

 

On every forum visited-despite there being a central theme-there is inevitably an 'off topic/general' area. I posted this same thread on a motorcycle forum, which, several weeks ago had discussed Brexit. What surprised me was that despite a very heated debate on that subject, the post on freedom of speech received harsh criticism from several who had actively supported Brexit. There is a sense of something that perturbed me, I can't quite put it into words, but it seems to me there is an intolerance for free speech, a terrible fear of it. Specifically mentioned were the usual politics/religion-which, I believe is the result of the old phrase 'never discuss politics, or religion' and yet these are the things that are most important to discuss.

 

I was very pleased with the moderators on this forum who re-opened the thread on a touchy subject by Sionnach. This is something I have never witnessed and it came as a great and unexpected surprise. I don't believe in 'anything goes' most certainly not the kind of speech that tries to, or advocates violence directly-even in fun, neither should people stoop to insults, or bullying which gets allowed too frequently on forums when a clique of old timers has developed. Cliques destroy forums, leaving the old timers congatulating themselves on everything they agree with. This shrinkage is common in clubs that I have been a member of, causing them to disband. The life blood of clubs, societies and forums is widely different different opinions who are able to voice those opinions without being shouted down, bullied into leaving, or having draconian rules that shut their voices out.

 

We often talk of 'tolerance' but it always looks like the complete opposite to me. We should not need to 'tolerate' free speech, we should realise it is the only way to prevent minority suppression. People must be allowed to voice genuine heart felt concerns no matter how offensive. I nearly fell into that trap in Sionnach's thread just because it appeared anti-Semitic, but later discovered that it was written by a Isreali Jew in a very popular Jewish publication. This was a Jew questioning the closing down of free speech about Jewish atrocities through contrition over the holocaust. Yet here was I getting out the red marker before I had even listened to the video and, worse still being ignorant about the source of the headline used in the thread. It's just so easy to fall into this trap, just like in a club, it's just easier not to put up with those who have diametrically different opinions rather than cultivate tolerance for the right to speak and also the right to argue aggressively back. It isn't so much tolerance as realising that free speech is the only thing that seperates us from violence. Indeed I would argue that forum moderation that prevents free speech -as opposed to rabble rousing/bullying-is actually a form of violence.

[joeblast]

speaking of  silenced, augmented, etc

 

 

 

The source is a documentary called Spin by Brian Springer who found that early 90's satellite TV feeds were unencrypted, and went through every channel looking for juicy bits like the one linked above.

Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon - all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality. The hour long documentary has some fascinating insights into the political system that still resonate today.

Edited August 27, 2016 by joeblast

[Karl]

Coincidently I just watched that video prior to it being posted.

[futuredaze]

"We are doing this to ourselves" struck me as particularly relevant.

 

I've wondered about this on the various forums I've participated in over the years. At one time it seemed clear to me these were private spaces like someone's front room, or a restaurant, but this isn't the case when the aim is to attract anyone and everyone to, what is ostensibly a public meeting in which everyone is invited to have a voice.

 

On every forum visited-despite there being a central theme-there is inevitably an 'off topic/general' area. I posted this same thread on a motorcycle forum, which, several weeks ago had discussed Brexit. What surprised me was that despite a very heated debate on that subject, the post on freedom of speech received harsh criticism from several who had actively supported Brexit. There is a sense of something that perturbed me, I can't quite put it into words, but it seems to me there is an intolerance for free speech, a terrible fear of it. Specifically mentioned were the usual politics/religion-which, I believe is the result of the old phrase 'never discuss politics, or religion' and yet these are the things that are most important to discuss.

 

I was very pleased with the moderators on this forum who re-opened the thread on a touchy subject by Sionnach. This is something I have never witnessed and it came as a great and unexpected surprise. I don't believe in 'anything goes' most certainly not the kind of speech that tries to, or advocates violence directly-even in fun, neither should people stoop to insults, or bullying which gets allowed too frequently on forums when a clique of old timers has developed. Cliques destroy forums, leaving the old timers congatulating themselves on everything they agree with. This shrinkage is common in clubs that I have been a member of, causing them to disband. The life blood of clubs, societies and forums is widely different different opinions who are able to voice those opinions without being shouted down, bullied into leaving, or having draconian rules that shut their voices out.

 

We often talk of 'tolerance' but it always looks like the complete opposite to me. We should not need to 'tolerate' free speech, we should realise it is the only way to prevent minority suppression. People must be allowed to voice genuine heart felt concerns no matter how offensive. I nearly fell into that trap in Sionnach's thread just because it appeared anti-Semitic, but later discovered that it was written by a Isreali Jew in a very popular Jewish publication. This was a Jew questioning the closing down of free speech about Jewish atrocities through contrition over the holocaust. Yet here was I getting out the red marker before I had even listened to the video and, worse still being ignorant about the source of the headline used in the thread. It's just so easy to fall into this trap, just like in a club, it's just easier not to put up with those who have diametrically different opinions rather than cultivate tolerance for the right to speak and also the right to argue aggressively back. It isn't so much tolerance as realising that free speech is the only thing that seperates us from violence. Indeed I would argue that forum moderation that prevents free speech -as opposed to rabble rousing/bullying-is actually a form of violence.

I'm not sure why people are so afraid of free speech.  I think there is more to it then simply not wanting to hear dissenting opinions, although that is a part of it.  It seems that people think that free speech will lead to violence and chaos.  I'd argue that the opposite is more likely, that the suppression of free speech will lead to violence and chaos.  If people cannot express themselves in a peaceful way, they might feel compelled to respond in a more violent way.  Like somebody who is sexually repressed is more likely to develop deviant sexual habits, somebody who is repressed from voicing their opinion might end up acting instead of talking.

 

I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere.  If somebody says "I think people from Jibberalia are all stupid" it is offensive and rude, but I think it should be allowed.  However, if someone says "I think people from Jibberalia should be killed" or "I want to hurt people from Jibberalia", then that seems worthy of some legal repercussion.  People focus too much on words and often end up overlooking actions.  It is a real shame.

[thelerner]

I wouldn't sign the petition.  I don't like hate speech and I support some libel laws.  I'd rather not see hate speech given a free pass, or allow libelous speech to get off scot free.  I'll admit, saying which is which is not always an easy task, though sometimes it pretty clear.  I'd even argue such penalties should judged on the lenient side, but there are evil people who use such language to destroy and divide.  There should be a legal rout to stop them.

 

I've seen forums that have unconditional free speech.  They devolve.  The worst actors take them over, loudly and vulgarly.  Out posting others til rational people leave for saner sites, ones that have some rules of moderation.   It's sad and in a better world it wouldn't happen but here it does. 

 

In that way forums are a microcosm of the world.  You believe whole heartedly in that petition then start a forum, one that declares no moderation, free speech for all.  You'll find the crazy nasties sooner or later make a mockery of it. 

Edited August 28, 2016 by thelerner

[thelerner]

 I nearly fell into that trap in Sionnach's thread just because it appeared anti-Semitic, but later discovered that it was written by a Isreali Jew in a very popular Jewish publication.

Karl, you did fall into a trap.  Not recognizing a modern form of bigotry in action.  Maybe you recognize an outright rascist who simply screams .. the N word or outright calls Jews despicable, but you're ignorant of modern styles.  The extreme language still happend but mostly in privacy of there own meetings. 

 

Here's how up and coming racists play it these days.  They look for stories in ethnic sites or papers that are thoughtful deep exposes.  They find them, and link to them, with titles like, in this case, Mass Murdering Jews.  Boom they get there headlines. 

 

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Sionnach did find that article because he looks through Jewish sites for insightful history.  Dollars to donuts he didn't.  He got it off of a racist site, and felt a duty to put it up here along with the racist title of Mass Murdering Jews.  Not being a minority means things are invisible to you.   Never facing prejudice some privileged tend to think it doesn't exist.  Sadly it does.  Things worse then prejudice exist and evil people exploit it and at its extreme it causes murder.  

Edited August 28, 2016 by thelerner

[Karl]

I'm not sure why people are so afraid of free speech.  I think there is more to it then simply not wanting to hear dissenting opinions, although that is a part of it.  It seems that people think that free speech will lead to violence and chaos.  I'd argue that the opposite is more likely, that the suppression of free speech will lead to violence and chaos.  If people cannot express themselves in a peaceful way, they might feel compelled to respond in a more violent way.  Like somebody who is sexually repressed is more likely to develop deviant sexual habits, somebody who is repressed from voicing their opinion might end up acting instead of talking.

 

I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere.  If somebody says "I think people from Jibberalia are all stupid" it is offensive and rude, but I think it should be allowed.  However, if someone says "I think people from Jibberalia should be killed" or "I want to hurt people from Jibberalia", then that seems worthy of some legal repercussion.  People focus too much on words and often end up overlooking actions.  It is a real shame.

The entire point of handing over the right to physical defence and justice to the state is to declaw ourselves. Instead of beating each other's brains out, we hiss and roar. If we can't hiss and roar then people will return to physical force. Free speech is a right and not a privilege.

[Karl]

I wouldn't sign the petition.  I don't like hate speech and I support some libel laws.  I'd rather not see hate speech given a free pass, or allow libelous speech to get off scot free.  I'll admit, saying which is which is not always an easy task, though sometimes it pretty clear.  I'd even argue such penalties should judged on the lenient side, but there are evil people who use such language to destroy and divide.  There should be a legal rout to stop them.

 

I've seen forums that have unconditional free speech.  They devolve.  The worst actors take them over, loudly and vulgarly.  Out posting others til rational people leave for saner sites, ones that have some rules of moderation.   It's sad and in a better world it wouldn't happen but here it does. 

 

In that way forums are a microcosm of the world.  You believe whole heartedly in that petition then start a forum, one that declares no moderation, free speech for all.  You'll find the crazy nasties sooner or later make a mockery of it.

 

I'm saddened but not surprised by your reasoning. There isn't any such thing as 'hate speech' there is only speech. 'Hate speech' is impossible to quantify and because it is so flexible it can be applied anywhere and everywhere with penalty by the Government. It's important you realise precisely what this means because it's end point is tyranny. Free speech is something we have accepted as a right, as part and parcel of giving up violence, it is the only way we have of protecting ourselves and minorities from persecution. This petition is not about something new, it's about a birth right, the only freedom we have to hold the state and its Government to account. 'Hate speech' was a communist invention to shut down dissent, it is how tyrants and evil win. Do you really want a country in which you dare not speak out for fear of your, wife, child, friend reporting you to the authorities for re-education. By refusing to sign you are acting precisely in that way-you are becoming the framework for a new Stasi, a new wall and complicity in whatever evil might be coming down the line.

[Karl]

Karl, you did fall into a trap.  Not recognizing a modern form of bigotry in action.  Maybe you recognize an outright rascist who simply screams .. the N word or outright calls Jews despicable, but you're ignorant of modern styles.  The extreme language still happend but mostly in privacy of there own meetings. 

 

Here's how up and coming racists play it these days.  They look for stories in ethnic sites or papers that are thoughtful deep exposes.  They find them, and link to them, with titles like, in this case, Mass Murdering Jews.  Boom they get there headlines. 

 

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Sionnach did find that article because he looks through Jewish sites for insightful history.  Dollars to donuts he didn't.  He got it off of a racist site, and felt a duty to put it up here along with the racist title of Mass Murdering Jews.  Not being a minority means things are invisible to you.   Never facing prejudice some privileged tend to think it doesn't exist.  Sadly it does.  Things worse then prejudice exist and evil people exploit it and at its extreme it causes murder.

 

The problem is my dear Lerner it is you that has become the bigot, but are unable to see it. Your answer is to shut down any discussion because 'you' think it's dangerous, or subversive. You think it is your right to censor, but the point is that you are acting just like the bigots that you rail against. People must make their own minds up about these things, not be told they cannot even talk about them. Even if there is an anti-Semite posting stories then it is not up to you to censor them, but to use your voice to argue and expose their bigotry if that is indeed what it is.

 

Sionnach was making a point and it's an important one, but it appears it has gone straight over your head because you don't subscribe to a right we have had in the West to speak as we think. Even if we dislike what someone's says we should defend the right of them to say it and then boycot, argue, laugh at the person until their voice becomes insignificant. We change behaviour and opinion not by bluntly declaring that no one should be allowed to hear, but by ensuring that no one listens.

 

Sionnachs latest post was about Love. Should be censor it because it refuses the idea that Love is a product of the emotions ? Is Sionnach a romantic bigot to be censored ? What about the religious adherence to the Tao, should this be regarded as anti-Christian/anti-atheist and damaging/offending to those groups and be censored ? Once we start on censorship there isn't an end to it. The soviets took away books, re-wrote sections, re-edited films in order to censor anything which might engage the mind and begin dissidence. It's either free speech or it's not. There isn't a point of compromise. If you are on the side of censorship you are in fact a far greater danger to people's freedoms and happiness than the bigotry you believe you are preventing.

[wilfred]

I like free speech. Let laws be enacted on ones actions, let hateful speech be frowned upon, marginalised, not banned. The haters will suffer the consequences of unwholesome mind states regardless.

 

I also disagree with many aspects of copyright law, again similar to free speech. These ideas run contrary to the nature of ideas to be free. There's a greed element there and it's ultimately not in societies best interests.

[Karl]

I like free speech. Let laws be enacted on ones actions, let hateful speech be frowned upon, marginalised, not banned. The haters will suffer the consequences of unwholesome mind states regardless.

I also disagree with many aspects of copyright law, again similar to free speech. These ideas run contrary to the nature of ideas to be free. There's a greed element there and it's ultimately not in societies best interests.

Not so much copyright, but patents and intellectual property is problematic.

[blackstar212]

speaking of  silenced, augmented, etc

 

 

 

The source is a documentary called Spin by Brian Springer who found that early 90's satellite TV feeds were unencrypted, and went through every channel looking for juicy bits like the one linked above.

Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon - all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality. The hour long documentary has some fascinating insights into the political system that still resonate today.

Very interesting. Chalk up one more reason for me to remain apolitical.

[Brian]

I'm not sure why people are so afraid of free speech.

<snip>

The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.

[silent thunder]

“Never mistake my silence, as ignorance I'll speak on it when I'm ready. Never mistake my calmness, as acceptance, I'll deal with it in due time. Never mistake my kindness as weakness my scars are proof that I'm a survivor not a victim, but most of all, never mistake that because I chose to ignore, that I was blind, even a fool knows snakes in the grass only move when found out and I want everyone to see you first”